Sentongo & Another v Kamulegeya & 2 Others (Civil Application 40 of 2019)

Observed later treatment

Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.

Holding

The applicants, who were not parties to a Supreme Court appeal, sought to set aside paragraph 2 of a consent order endorsed by the Deputy Registrar that purported to transfer disputed land and reverse concurrent High Court and Court of Appeal judgments. The court held that an appeal cannot be allowed by consent and that only an appellate court, after hearing the appeal, may reverse a lower court's decision; a registrar has no jurisdiction to overturn a judge's or justice's decision. Invoking its inherent powers under Rule 2(2), the court found the consent collusive, illegal and an abuse of court process, struck out paragraph 2, and awarded costs to the applicants.

Outcome

Application allowed; paragraph 2 of the consent order struck out.

Facts

The first respondent sued the second and third respondents over eleven acres of land at Kireka Bira (Busiro Block 306 Plot 1297). The High Court gave judgment for the first respondent, cancelled the third respondent's title, restored the first respondent as proprietor and issued a permanent injunction. The Court of Appeal upheld those orders. The first respondent then subdivided the land and transferred plots 4423 and 4424 to the first applicant and plot 4425 to the second applicant. The second and third respondents appealed to the Supreme Court (SCCA No.05 of 2018). Before the appeal was heard, the respondents filed a Consent to Withdrawal of Appeal, endorsed by the Deputy Registrar. Paragraph 2 of that consent assented to the appellant's possession and transfer of ownership of the eleven acres, effectively reversing the concurrent lower-court judgments. The applicants, who held subdivided plots derived from the first respondent's title but were not parties to the appeal or the consent, applied to strike out paragraph 2, contending it was collusive and deprived them of their proprietary interests.

Issues

1. Whether the application was a review application or one invoking the inherent powers of the court.
2. Whether the Deputy Registrar had jurisdiction to endorse a consent order whose effect was to reverse the concurrent judgments of the High Court and Court of Appeal.
3. Whether paragraph 2 of the consent order should be struck out as illegal and an abuse of court process.

Orders

• Paragraph 2 of the Consent to Withdrawal of Civil Appeal No.05 of 2018 endorsed by the Registrar on 11 March 2019 is struck out.
• The application is allowed.
• Costs of the application awarded to the applicants.

Rules and key headnotes

Legislation cited (5)

• Rules of the Supreme Court r.2(2)
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.42
• Rules of the Supreme Court r.43
• Civil Procedure Rules S.I 71-1 Order 50 r.2
• Civil Procedure Rules r.1(1)(b)

Cases cited (5)

• Blasio Konde v Bulandina Nankya and Another (Civil Appeal No. 7 of 1980)
• Makula International Limited v Cardinal Nsubuga and Another [2014] 3 EA
• Mohamed Allibhai v E. Bukenya and Departed Asians Property Custodian Board (Civil Appeal No. 56 of 1995)
• Betuco (U) Ltd and Another v Barclays Bank of Uganda Limited and 2 Others (Civil Appeal No. 1 of 2017)
• Northern India Caterers (India) versus Lt. Governor of Delhi (1979)

Cases citing this judgment (1)

How later Ugandan judgments in the Wakilii corpus have cited this case. Treatment labels come from Sequitur — Uganda’s citator — each backed by a verbatim span from the citing judgment, and are not an assertion that this case is, or is not, good law.

• Kamulegeya and 2 Others v Sentongo and Another [2023] UGSC 20

The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.